What do you mean? I think you didn't understand the experiment. Subjects were shown the same text with, at random, a male name, female name, or initials. These names were not real researchers, nor familiar to the subjects.
> If it is known that most discoveries are made by males it is reasonable to give larger weight to new male-done research
I'm sure you can see the two different fallacies in this short sentence:
- There have been more male researchers than female, therefore more "discoveries" were made by men than women. No shit. This does not mean male researchers are better than female, obviously.
- There are more men being researchers therefore men's research should be given more weight therefore there are more men researchers therefore...
1. most discoveries are made by males
2. it is reasonable to give larger weight to new female-done research
contradicting you point.
No it isn’t. Dont you see this is just circular reasoning?
I think it's safe to say that this study can be treated as an anecdote because we don't know the effect size or exact methodology and it was never peer-reviewed. And I'd agree with your point if we were talking about the Nobel prize study, which evaluates people as individuals. But arguing that 'real bias' is bias that doesn't come from empirical evidence doesn't make a whole lot of sense- all bias comes from empirical evidence of varying quality.
I don't see this "bias" as inefficient or counter-productive. It is just an artifact of the way you designed your flawed experiment.
To find any real bias you would have to assure the subjects that the researchers were equally accomplished.